Talk:Michael Gableman

Whitewashing
165.219.245.62 has been making a concerted effort to whitewash this article:
 * Source: "State Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman received free legal service worth thousands of dollars from one of Wisconsin's largest law firms as it defended him against an ethics charge, according to a letter released Thursday by the firm."
 * 165.219.245.62: "The justice received legal counsel from July 2008 to July 2010 on a contingency basis from the Wisconsin law firm of Michael Best & Friedrich. Gableman received the services from the law firm as it defended him in a disputed matter."

The IP address 165.219.245.62 is registered to the Wisconsin Court System (http://wicourts.gov/). This user has an obvious conflict of interest in editing this article. The whitewashing must stop. 32.218.42.167 (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

unsourced section - Judicial philosophy
The following content was unsourced, and had an WP:UNDUE tag. Needs discussion about appropriate sourcing and NPOV description before we restore this section:

Gableman is a judicial conservative. In a 2014 speech given at his alma mater, Ripon College, for its annual Law Day, Gableman contrasted judicial conservatism and judicial activism:

"A judge who practices judicial conservatism, as opposed to activism, will seek out neutral and definable principles to reach a conclusion. He will not, as the activist does, rely on his own moral compass or his gut instincts as to what is permissible and what is not.  When interpreting statutes, a conservative judge will give the words their plain meaning.  If, however, the answer is still not clear, the judge will look to a series of accepted canons of interpretation that focus on the text of the statute.

When interpreting constitutional provisions, a judge who practices judicial conservatism will put the words of the constitution in their proper context by seeking to understand what they meant at the time they were adopted.

An activist, on the other hand, will, as they might say, 'update' statutes or constitutional provisions by using nebulous standards to divine some hidden legislative intent beyond the words enacted. This is a dangerous game, as it allows judges to substitute their opinions and policy preferences for those of the legislative or executive branches.

If a judge ignores the plain meaning of a law and instead interprets the language of a statute to suit his own policy goals, then the judge is in effect writing legislation, not interpreting it. This takes power away from the elected representatives of the people and places it in the hands of a single judge. Similarly, if a judge directs executive action through a court order simply because he disagrees with the executive's action, the judge usurps the role of the people's chosen executive. . . . A judge’s first duty is to faithfully uphold the constitution, whether it is the United States Constitution or the Wisconsin Constitution. A statute that violates a clear constitutional provision must be struck down. If not, the judiciary would be shirking its responsibility and thus evading its plain duty."

Nor does [this philosophy] mean that a conservative judge is left without any means to decide cases in which a constitutional or statutory provision is ambiguous. Judges are often called upon to answer difficult questions. However, when faced with ambiguous terms, a conservative judge does not simply supply his preferred meaning. Rather, the judge applies the established canons of interpretation to determine the legislature’s purpose, or, in the case of a Constitutional Amendment, the people's purpose."

We should get very high quality, secondary sources describing his philosophy, and base this section on them. Ideas for sources? Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

page protection
I am seeking protection for this article. The edit warring here is not good. Jytdog (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Gableman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527182027/http://www.wicourts.gov/about/judges/supreme/gableman.htm to http://www.wicourts.gov/about/judges/supreme/gableman.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Gableman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141024071116/http://m.jsonline.com/136819938.htm to http://m.jsonline.com/136819938.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Intro paragraph (October 2021)
User:X4n6 -- To discuss the following edits:, ,. Basically the content of the lead (intro) section is now bloated with a lot of extraneous detail about his most recent news controversy. Right now, content about his appointment as an investigator of the 2020 election accounts for fully 80% of the intro paragraph, which is absurdly bloated over-representation for a minor resume bullet point. MOS:LEAD directly addresses this sort of issue -- "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific" and notes about "controversies" cannot be allowed to "overwhelm" the intro.

The intro is also supposed to be somewhat timeless -- Ten years from now, I'm not even sure his role in the investigation will warrant a single mention in the intro. But for now, it certainly does not warrant more than 1 brief sentence describing his role. Suggested text: "He is currently employed by the Wisconsin State Assembly to conduct an investigation into the 2020 United States presidential election in Wisconsin."

Much of the discussed content also falls within the guidance of WP:NOTNEWS. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:LEAD: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources."


 * In a single, concise paragraph, the article's lead accomplishes that. The first sentence identifies him as a lawyer and former state supreme court justice. It establishes the topic, context and why the topic is notable. It also meets MOS:FIRST. The edits you questioned summarize important points regarding the current prominent controversy over the proposed election audit. It could also include past controversies: like the allegations of racist, false advertising during his judicial campaign; or the ethics complaint regarding his alleged failure to recuse himself from a case in which he had an apparent financial interest. But that would be excessive and likely violate balancing concerns. But briefly encapsulating the current controversy is consistent with another sentence of LEAD which says: "The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on—though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows."


 * While your proposed edit: "He is currently employed by the Wisconsin State Assembly to conduct an investigation into the 2020 United States presidential election in Wisconsin." does not fulfill LEAD. It violates MOS:DONTTEASE. Just as importantly, it does not meet MOS:NOTLEDE. As for your arguments that the intro should be "somewhat timeless" and "ten years from now, I'm not even sure his role in the investigation will warrant a single mention in the intro," they appear to be more fanciful than factual. They're certainly unsupported by the current record. There is nothing in his career, prior to this point, that suggests anything more than local, parochial interest or achievement. But even a cursory review of the current national coverage in the Washington Post, New York Times, Newsweek, LA Times, etc., all indicate his national notability comes, exclusively, from his current role with the audit and his actions regarding it. Even the regional coverage in the Milwaukee Sentinel Journal, The Cap Times, Wisconsin Law Journal, Wisconsin Examiner, PBS Wisconsin and many others, suggest this is likely to be the first and probably the major thing he'll be remembered for moving forward. So any suggestion that leading a controversial state audit of a Presidential election is somehow NOTNEWS defies common sense. It's also thoroughly refuted by that very long list of actual news outlets. It's also belied by the fact that this project already has substantial articles on the subject, including: Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud and Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election. So if anything, the reliable sources, this project's guidelines and its editorial history, all suggest the section on the audit should be expanded in this article, not diminished or excised in its lead. X4n6 (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm all for having a robust article section about the election investigation, and based on current news hype, it certainly warrants a brief sentence in the intro. But the current intro is incredibly bloated -- the details about Robin Vos and the Gableman quotes add no relevant information to explaining Gableman's current role.  The Vos and the quotes are fluff, bordering on WP:TMI.  MOS:DONTTEASE & MOS:NOTLEDE absolutely do not apply to the suggested edit -- there's no buried information teased by that sentence, all the relevant context is given and there is no tease of other detail.


 * Furthermore, the subject's notability is derived from his service as a Wisconsin Supreme Court judge -- not his role in this investigation, which is already partly disowned by his own party and which we already know will result in zero effect on the election result. His name is in a lot of newspapers right now because of tabloid fascination.  But again, WP:NOTNEWS "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style."  There are several other "election investigators" employed in various other states -- even the "Cyber Ninja" company and CEO don't warrant their own articles, and that was definitely the most widely reported election investigation.  This "newsy" issue is not relevant to the article's notability, it is a current event that warrants brief mention in the intro.


 * But again, in 10 years, when nothing ever comes of this investigation, when Republicans in the State Legislature refuse to give him supboena power, when he disappears quietly after releasing a report criticizing some local election clerks over absentee voting rules, I sincerely doubt this even warrants a mention in the intro. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Simply offering a recitation of your own arguments with no consideration for either our guidelines, editorial history, or the sources, is not helpful. While you referenced my suggestion that you review MOS:DONTTEASE and MOS:NOTLEDE, it doesn't appear that you actually read them. If I'm mistaken, please point to the sections within each that you believe recommend less in the intro, not more. Also, WP:TMI is neither a policy or guideline. It is merely an explanatory supplement. Nor does it specifically address the lead. WP:NOTNEWS still does not apply. You've conveniently ignored the word "most" as in "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." I'm confident that coverage of an audit intended to overturn the results of a presidential election, does not fall under "most" and does qualify for inclusion. You also have confused "tabloid fascination" with legitimate news. It betrays an unfortunate bias to conflate reliable sources like the Washington Post, New York Times, USA Today, PBS, Newsweek, et al - and how we use them here - with tabloids. Suggest a review of WP:V in general and WP:SOURCES in particular.


 * Furthermore, while the subject's Wikipedia notability derives from his tenure as a jurist, as all the sources agree, his current, real-world notability derives exclusively from his appointment and subsequent post-appointment actions regarding the audit. That's an undisputed fact, again, supported by all the sources. To ignore or diminish that information, as you suggest, would be like saying Donald Trump had a decades long career in real estate in New York, so that should outweigh his short-by-comparison four years in public office. A review of the intro in his BLP shows the amount of lines devoted to his term in office far outweighs the amount of space devoted to his business and tv career. Perhaps you disagree with that too? But I and other editors believe it is as it should be. His tenure in office was far more consequential. Just as Gableman's tenure on this audit is already far more consequential than anything else he ever did as a jurist. However, if you have additional information that you believe merits inclusion in the lead, or addition in the article itself, I'd be happy to discuss it. Then let's see where we are. We already agree that the article itself should have a more robust section on his involvement and actions regarding the audit. But I don't understand your issue with the Vos quote because it's just two words: "cover up." While Gableman's quotes are more succinct and explanatory than paraphrasing them would be. But if you'd like to propose another re-write, put it here and we can discuss. Also agree that there is no buried information in that section now. But there would have been with your suggested edit. Again, as pertains to the intro, I suspect nothing will prove more consequential and deserving of more lines than the audit. Regarding what will happen either 10 years from now, or 10 weeks from now regarding the audit, per WP:NOTBALL that is not our concern at this time. Since, per WP:NOTFINISHED, we can and will always revise the article to reflect any new reality. But to suggest that we not include relevant and important information now, because it might be rendered obsolete or less important later, either in a decade or so, or even a few weeks later, isn't how this project works. As information evolves, we'll reflect that evolution. X4n6 (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't care enough to put up with this inane argument-for-the-sake-of-argument. You're not even debating the substance, you're acting like I want to eliminate all mention of the audit -- The Vos stuff and the quotes are obviously useless fluff for an intro, but I don't care enough.  Keep it.  As you suggested, I'll be back in a year to clean this up when we know in hindsight that this audit and his role in it amounted to absolutely nothing of any historical significance. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Whatever you need to tell yourself to refuse collaboration is entirely your choice. The article will, no doubt, be changed multiple times between now and whenever/if you elect to return to it. Welcome to Wikipedia. X4n6 (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Audit costs
I read this article after reading other news about the situation. When I tried to read the sources for the compensation of some of those involved in the audit, which I suspected might be inaccurate or exaggerated, all the articles were paywalled and I couldn't get around the paywalls. I looked for something that could supplant a useless citation, then did find a legitimate source, and discovered that my suspicions were well-founded. I did finally find what appeared to be an accurate source that was easily accessible as well. Activist (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

To add to article
To add to this article: the fact that Gableman is former deputy associate director of outreach, diversity and inclusion in the Donald Trump administration (this information was stated on the March 13, 2022 episode of CBS News 60 Minutes). 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)